Reprinted from the Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates
of the 89th Congress, First Session.

Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues
have told me they are being deluged these days with letters from honest
and sincere people who have been led to believe that someone wants to "flood
out" the Grand Canyon. Let me quickly state that, if this were true, I
would be at the head of the column marching against the invaders. I am
a native of Arizona, I was born not too many miles from the Grand Canyon;
one of my great-grandfathers was John D. Lee, for whom Lees Ferry was named.
The Grand Canyon means a lot to me, and I would oppose with all my vigor
any attempt to mar its great beauty.

Fortunately, there is no plan to mar the beauty
of the Grand Canyon. And a kind of negative confirmation of this fact can
be found in the arguments of the very people who are stirring up this deluge
of mail. In effect, they acknowledge the weakness of their "flooding out"
thesis when they resort to what might be called the "foot in the door"
argument -- that is, that the real danger lies, not in this project, but
in some nebulous but frightful future intrusions into the national park
system.

What has prompted this letter-writing campaign
is the Lower Colorado River Basin project, undoubtedly the most comprehensive
project ever planned to meet the water needs of the American people. In
only its initial phase it would serve the interests of more than 11 million
people in the Southwest, and in its ultimate development it can assure
water security for the entire West for many years to come by a program
of efficient utilization of water supplies.

For almost 50 years leaders in my state have discussed
plans whereby Arizona's share of the Colorado River could be utilized in
our area, which is the fastest growing and driest region of the country.
Meanwhile they have given their support to the development of water resources
in every other river basin in the United States.

The legislation that is now before Congress emerged
when people of the Pacific Southwest recognized their problems were common,
and that they could only be solved by working together on concepts of regional
and basin planning. Evidence of this common purpose is the fact that 37
Members of the Congress representing this area introduced identical bills
to authorize the Lower Colorado River Basin project.

These bills provide for two major control and
hydroelectric power dams on the Colorado River, and pumping and diversion
facilities to transport the water into the Salt River Valley area around
Phoenix and on to Tucson in Arizona. Like all reclamation projects it would
serve the multiple purpose of providing water storage needed for irrigation,
for industry, and for municipal and domestic use. In addition to the stored
water that generates power which helps pay for the project, the reservoirs
would serve yet another valuable function: providing recreation and fish-and-wildlife
habitats. Of the total Federal investment more than 90 percent would be
repaid. Reclamation water development has demonstrated its ability to create
prosperous, viable, and self-sustaining local economies while, at the same
time, recovering the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, every President of the United States
since Theodore Roosevelt has given his wholehearted support to reclamation
developments in the arid and semiarid western half of the Nation. When
President Johnson recently signed legislation to authorize the Auburn-Folsom
South project for California's Central Valley, he remarked:

I have never seen a dollar invested
anywhere in this Nation in water conservation., in multiple-use projects,
that in a period of even a decade didn't prove that it was a good investment,
and would pay very high returns on what we had spent for it.

Without a doubt a project of this magnitude does
raise many questions, and I want to discuss these frankly.

DEMANDS ON RIVER

Is not the Colorado River now overly committed?

The Colorado River is a stream of widely fluctuating
annual runoffs which make probable future water supply estimates very difficult.
Using one period, for example 1906-59, the average annual yield was over
15 million acre-feet. Through the drought years of 1930-62 the yield was
less than 14 million acre-feet.

Compounding this, of course, are future depletions
in the Upper Basin States, commitments to the Mexican Government, anticipated
salvage works, evaporation, and other factors.

Taking all this into account, the water engineers
of the Lower Basin States -- Arizona, California, and Nevada -- have agreed
there is an equal chance the supply in the mainstream will equal or exceed
the amount needed to provide 4.4 million acre-feet a year for California,
water for decreed rights and existing mainstream projects in Arizona and
Nevada and the Southern Nevada Water Supply Project, water for increasing
demands of the Upper Basin, and a full supply of 1.2 million acre-feet
per annum for the proposed central Arizona project until about the turn
of the century, gradually reducing thereafter.

Both basins, they conclude, are ultimately dependent
upon substantial importations which should be made available by the last
decade of the present century.

NEED FOR WATER

How really serious is the water situation in Arizona
now?

Central and southern Arizona with less than 11
inches of annual rainfall and, consequently, a lack of sufficient surface
water, have had to depend almost entirely upon underground water. Tucson,
a city of some 300,000 people, is the largest city in the United States,
if not the world, that derives its entire water supply from pumping. Arizona
is mining from its underground reservoirs 2-1/4 million acre-feet more
than is considered a safe withdrawal. So the water tables have dropped
alarmingly, causing prominent earth fissures to develop, needed agricultural
acreage to go out of production, and small communities to wither. Our only
relief is through the use of our rightful share of the Colorado River.

USES OF WATER

Where would project water be put to use?

During the early years of the project it is estimated
that 70 percent of the water would help sustain Arizona's agricultural
economy. No new acreage would be brought into production, but the water
would stabilize an agricultural economy whose products are predominantly
for the market and not for storage. The project area is the Nation's winter
salad bowl, producing 95 percent of its lettuce, 70 percent of its cantaloups,
and similarly high proportions of other fruits and vegetables. In fact,
agriculture in this area generates far less surplus than the national average.

REPAYMENT PLAN

How would the project be paid for?

Under a, 50-year repayment plan this investment
in natural resources development would repay to the Government far more
than its construction cost. The sale of water and power would return more
than 90 percent of the project's cost, all costs except those allocated
to such public benefits as fish and wildlife conservation. In addition,
the Federal Government would receive more than half a billion dollars in
interest during the repayment period. This is the essence of reclamation,
in which electricity, from falling water, is turned into water for cities
and farms at a price a user can pay.

CONTROVERSY OVER DAMS

What is the argument about the dams?

Mr. Speaker, this Nation has taken pride in its
abilities to plan and construct great wealth-producing hydroelectric power
dams. We all would have been the losers if Congress had heeded the criticisms
of some to delay the authorization of Hoover Dam 35 years ago to store
water for diversion to southern California. Arizona surely would have been
a disaster State had not farsighted men hastened the construction of the
Salt River project's Roosevelt Dam that made possible the growth of Phoenix.
People in the Northwest would have been the poorer if Grand Coulee had
not been built.

And yet the criticisms we hear most often about
this project are about building the dams, and the critics have raised a
number of doubts about their feasibility and merits. In the main they are:

Is the power marketable? Could it be produced
more cheaply by steamplants?

Do such dams make more water available or just
cause more water to be lost by evaporation? Would they become obsolete?

Would the dam destroy scenery?

I believe there are full and adequate answers
to each of these questions. In this brief discussion space does not permit
me to deal with every point and every aspect, but I will attempt to answer
each of these main lines of criticism.

President Johnson, speaking on the subject of
conservation and development of the Nation's water resources, observed
that "the real wasters, the real spendthrifts, are those who by neglecting
the needs of today destroy the hopes of tomorrow."

The dams on the Colorado River are our hopes for
tomorrow. The revenues from the sale of hydroelectric power make the project
feasible. These revenues plus revenues from Hoover and Parker-Davis Dams
(available once their costs have been repaid a few years hence) will make
possible the ultimate import of water into the basin.

That is what millions of people have at stake
in the dams on the Colorado River.

SELECTION OF SITES

Why these particular sites?

The particular dam locations included in this
project were selected and approved many years ago, as revealed in a letter
written in 1933 to the Commissioner of Reclamation by Horace Albright when
he was director of the National Park Service. He wrote:

As I see it the Bridge Canyon project
is in no way affected by the Grand Canyon National Monument proclamation;
we have had it in mind all the time, the Bridge Canyon project.

The sites have been reevaluated many times since,
and they are, in fact, the last remaining locations for power dams on the
river.

Marble Canyon site is entirely outside and upstream
of Grand Canyon National Park. Bridge Canyon site is located some 80 miles
west and downstream of the Grand Canyon National Park boundary. Its reservoir
would back up 13 miles, not into but along the boundary of the park, much
as Fontana Lake, a manmade reservoir, forms a dramatic boundary for the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

NEED FOR HYDRO POWER

Why is hydroelectric power preferred? It has been
argued by those opposing the dams that cheaper power is available from
fossil fuel operating plants. Both private and public power companies will
testify they are eager customers for hydroelectric power. In fact, engineers
predict there will be a shortage of such power in a few years if new dams
are not built. "Peaking power," provided by hydroelectric dams, is needed
to realize the most efficient operation of electric utilities depending
on steamplants for their "baseload" power. Very simply, generators run
by waterpower can be readily regulated to meet fluctuations in demand for
power while steamplants are best suited for constant, "baseload" operation.
The two types of generation do not compete with one another but are complementary;
economic studies show that "peaking" hydroplants would produce the greatest
return to the development fund.

It can be anticipated that thermal and atomic
powerplants will improve in efficiency in the future, but it is highly
unlikely they will ever approach the operating flexibility of hydropower.

The Federal Power Commission has current applications
for non-Federal hydroelectric dams at both the Bridge and Marble sites.
If the Lower Colorado River project is not approved by the end of 1966,
it is entirely possible that the FPC may grant licenses for construction
of dams at these sites to State or private bodies.

WATER LOSSES

What about evaporation, seepage, and water quality?

There has been considerable comment made about
evaporation loss, seepage, and water quality. Granted there would be evaporation
losses of approximately 85,000 acre-feet behind Bridge and another 15,000
acre-feet behind Marble, I should like again to emphasize that these wealth-producing
power facilities would make it possible to bring into the river as much
as 10 to 15 million acre-feet of water annually -- 100 times the loss from
evaporation.

Seepage is a recognized fact, too, and critics
have made an example of Lake Powell. But the water doesn't just disappear
there once the sandstone has absorbed its limit. It is actually stored
in the walls and will return to the river as Lake Powell fluctuates from
time to time. It should be noted here that the water behind Bridge Canyon
Dam would be maintained at an almost constant level.

Fears also have been expressed about increased
salinity as a result of the dams, but the Department of Interior finds
there is no evidence to support this claim. To the contrary, many professional
people maintain that holding water in storage over extended periods of
time improves water quality.

LIFE EXPECTANCY OF DAMS

Do dams stay young?

It has been said that sediment problems will make
the dams obsolete just a few years after completion. The heavy silt load
of the Colorado has been studied by such agencies as the Geological Survey,
the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department
of the Navy since 1925. With the accumulation of all this information engineers
have become convinced that the "life expectancy" of dams on the Colorado
can be extended indefinitely.

EFFECT ON SCENERY

Do dams destroy scenery?

By far the most often-heard claim is that the
Grand Canyon would be damaged and the river forever lost if this project
were built. Those who make this claim lose sight of the following:

First of all, this issue was thoroughly explored
and decided long ago -- in 1919 -- and spelled out in legislation establishing
Grand Canyon National Park.

Second, Grand Canyon would not be flooded. The
only water backing into the park would be along the Park boundary for 13
miles in a remote area never visited or seen by the general public.

Third, neither dam would be constructed in Grand
Canyon. Bridge Canyon lies 80 miles west of the park boundary; Marble Canyon
Dam, lying upstream of the park, could not possibly contribute to "flooding"
Grand Canyon.

Fourth, the Colorado River ceased to be a natural,
"wild" river many years ago and most recently when Glen Canyon Dam was
constructed. However, construction of these dams actually would transform
the river below Marble Canyon from a widely fluctuating, muddy river to
a clear, uniformly flowing river for more than 100 miles through the park.
Thus, for the first time, the river would provide a superb habitat for
fishing and a safe course for thrilling visits to the innermost reaches
of the canyon.

And finally, these reservoirs themselves would
provide access to remote areas, now totally beyond the view of ordinary
visitors, above and below the park, forming a river highway to scenes of
hidden splendor. Like paved roads to the park rim and trails into the canyon,
all attacked once as "intrusions," these reservoirs can open to the public
much scenery available now only to the select few.

WILDERNESS CONCEPT INTACT

The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
concluded in its report on the Lower Colorado River Basin project, dated
August 6, 1964, that:

The reservoir's (Bridge Canyon)
impact on the park is minimal. Over 98 percent of the land area in the
park will remain in its natural condition * * * In the committee's view
it does no violence to the "wilderness concept" which this committee vigorously
espouses, to permit this unique opportunity to the public at large to glimpse
at first hand the matchless splendor of this most magnificent of American
scenic treasures.

Mr. Speaker, imagine the sight of placid, clear
blue lakes reflecting the majesty of sheer cliffs 1,500 to 3,000 feet high
that form the inner gorge of Marble and Bridge Canyons, or picture miles
of fiord-like views, all now within the reach of everyone to see. These
are values not to be discounted or written off as "desecration" or "destruction."
Reclamation lakes at Grand Teton and Glacier parks have added to the public's
enjoyment of these areas of natural beauty, and the same can be true of
Bridge Canyon and Marble Canyon.

It is my position that these lakes and clear waters
can enhance the beauty of these canyons and, what is more, make them accessible
for the first time to the public for viewing and for unlimited recreation.
Yet I do not suggest that this project should be constructed for this purpose;
rather, I would emphasize that these benefits are subordinate to the greater
purpose of bringing water to an area of critical need. My point is that
these purposes are not in conflict.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the history of man the
control and use of water have guided his destiny, and civilizations have
perished where water supplies failed. The present and proposed construction
of dams on the Colorado River is essential to perpetuate much of the western
economy. Because a long time is required to bring major water resource
projects to completion, 1975 is tomorrow, and the time for action is now.